Nitpicker

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” - Albert Einstein

Friday, February 28, 2003

More Republican lies

Go check out The Daily Kos today to find out the truth about the Republican argument that the filibuster of the Estrada nomination is the first of its kind. (Not only is it not true, but Republicans did the same thing only three years ago!)

Why is it those who try to deal with this administration find -- too late -- that the knife in their back has their fingerprints on the handle right beside Bush's?

In his speech to the governors, Bush said he was "disappointed" that Congress did not provide the $3.5 billion he requested a year ago for counterterrorism programs.

A top GOP House official said the Bush administration was intimately involved in negotiating the details of the $397 billion omnibus spending bill the president signed into law earlier this month. White House officials and many budget experts said the measure provides $1.3 billion specifically to local governments to combat terrorism -- considerably less than the $3.5 billion that Bush said he wanted.

"If the president wanted the money, he should have asked for it. He never did," said a senior House GOP leadership aide. "Bush will say what he needs to say, and we understand that."

Democrats took advantage of the dust-up yesterday to slam Republicans for spending too little on homeland defense.

"Incredibly, the president is now blaming others for the budget he himself insisted on," said Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).

I suppose I feel less sorry for Hill Republicans, though, than I do for all those people who believed that Bush wouldn't "leave their child behind."

The Administration's budget falls $7 billion short of the resources promised in the Act, and it cuts funding for No Child Left Behind initiatives by $90 million. In addition, it funds less than half of the federal commitment to special education, an $11 billion shortfall that affects over 6 million American children with disabilities.

"Our nation's public schools cannot overcome the enormous obstacles they face on the cheap," said (Sen. Jim) Jeffords at a Capitol Hill press conference today.

Jeffords continued, "Mr. President, you can't have it all three ways. You can't pass a program such as No Child Left Behind, creating a huge federal need for funds, while refusing to provide those funds, and refusing to fully fund Special Education as promised, and now slashing federal revenues with massive tax cuts to handcuff federal appropriators. Your approach will only leave every child further behind."

What one has to believe is a plucky staffer on the Democratic side of the House Appropriations Committee has put up a very good list of Bush's lies about the budget called Caught On Film. I highly recommend it.

Today, perhaps, he could add the following:

I think the country needs to provide opportunities for people to serve, expanding AmeriCorps, expanding Senior Corps -- it's a good way for Americans to fight evil. And there's all kinds of opportunities: Senior Corps is one opportunity, AmeriCorps is one, church, synagogue or mosque programs are another.

As I said in my speech, if you don't know where to serve your two years of public service, or 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, here's a really good opportunity. - George W. Bush, February 5, 2002

And from Bush's proposal to reform Americorps:

Authorize Appropriations. The Administration calls on the Congress to authorize a $230 million increase from last year's budget - the full funding of AmeriCorps requested in the President's FY 2003 budget - which would permit AmeriCorps participation to increase from 50,000 Americans per year to 75,000. These 25,000 new AmeriCorps participants, in turn, will leverage at least 75, 000 additional volunteers for community service organizations. - USA Freedom Corps, Principles and Reforms for a Citizen Service Act .

A Bush administration bookkeeping decision has left a funding shortfall for the AmeriCorps national service program that could force enrollment cuts of as much as 50 percent -- instead of the 50 percent increase President Bush had promised.

The president embraced AmeriCorps, a Clinton-era program, after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and has made it a central part of his "compassionate conservative" agenda. During his State of the Union address last year, he called for AmeriCorps enrollment to grow to 75,000 from 50,000.

Instead, it is possible that enrollment will be held to 26,000 this year unless changes are made, AmeriCorps officials said.

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

Blair (moderator): The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend.

Friday, February 21, 2003

Gentle Ben

I usually don't pay much attention to Ben Shapiro. Why would I? Why would anyone? But, as I was reading TBogg's account of how confused Ben was by the Sam Goldwyn's excellent 1946 film The Best Years of Their Lives, something occurred to me. Isn't Shapiro, who's goes to great lengths to talk about what a "patriot" he is, only 19? Isn't that, like, the perfect fucking age to enlist in the goddamn military and put his ass on the line? He seems to thinks it's an excellent idea for others to die for a cause.

Sure, you can argue that there are plenty of conservatives who haven't served in the military who are supporting the war, but it's a little late for Rush "Anal Cysts" Limbaugh and George "Divinity School" Will to put their money where their mouth is, but Ben, if he were half the man his mouth makes him out to be, would march his ass down to a recruiter's office posthaste. If he doesn't, he's completely full of shit.

Do Keller, or any of the members of his "club," really believe that anything they write registers with the Bush administration? Is Donald Rumsfeld feeling more secure now that Slate is on board? Was Dick Cheney sitting around waiting for Lance Morrow's reluctant approval? In what world are these writers living? This is not a second-year honors seminar at the Kennedy School of Government. This is war, motherfucker!

Great Bylined Thinkers of America, I bid you: Shut up!

He also gives quite a rogering to some anti-war writers, but ends with this point (with which I completely agree):

On both sides of the Iraq war "debate," writers are straining. They want to be seers, prophets, and tellers of eternal truths. They think they're dropping wisdom for the ages. But they're not. They just sound foolish. From any important historical circumstance, only a few pieces of genuine literary art emerge. In this current situation, I would argue for two: the Onion'sspecialissueimmediatelyfollowingSeptember 11, and William Langewiesche's book about reclaiming Ground Zero. One was the product of seemingly divine humor inspiration, the other of months of 16-hour reporting days.

Thursday, February 20, 2003

I also want to make this tax code more fair. It's important that the tax code be fair. It's fair to tax corporate profits; that's fair. What's not fair, it seems to me, is that when a corporation distributes those profits to the shareholders in a form of what they call a dividend, that you tax it again. It doesn't make economic sense to keep taxing the same dollar over time. If part of a healthy economic society is one in which money is circulating in the private sector -- this causes fewer dollars to circulate -- it means less investment when you stand in between the owner of the company, the shareholder, and the distribution of once-taxed profits of that company. (Italics Nitpicker's)

My question, then, is would he support an amendment to his tax code that would exclude any company that has been avoiding taxes by using a post office box in Bermuda? He says right in his speech that it's fair to tax corporate profits and, by avoiding these taxes, their dividend payments can't be "double-taxed." Even more important, doesn't he think that these AWOL taxpayers ought to be forced to pay their "fair" share in the first place?

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Brother Bush's Traveling Destruction Show

"Ladies and gentlemen, I know that there are some of you out there tonight who still aren't convinced about the truth of what I'm telling you, so I thought maybe I might be able to explain my point of view better... in a song..."

An excellent article by Nicholas von Hoffman, who's really got Bush's number and writes about it very well. Check it:

To justify the indefensible, the administration and its defenders are prone to talk about "appeasement" and compare Saddam Hussein with Hitler. But one of the reasons Hitler was appeased was that he commanded a frightening, nearly invincible war machine. It took almost the entire world to defeat him, and it was a close thing at that. The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945. Will it take six years to defeat Saddam, or six days, or six hours? Whatever his intentions, he has no tanks, no airplanes, no submarines, no nothing. Anyone comparing this guy with Hitler has no understanding of how terrible Hitler was. That Saddam is a despicable gangster politician does not make his country a military power. It is all but defenseless against the United States, which has been bombing the place for years without losing a single aircraft or pilot. It even lacks the military capabilities of North Korea, a country which does have a set of sharp little teeth, and you can see the difference in George W. Bush’s approach to Kim Jung Il. Instead of the nailed boot, he gets the pussied foot.

Beautiful.

By the way, it seems like Americans are generally getting wise to Bush, as his latest poll numbers suggest.

Also, Digby, belatedly added to the blogroll at left, has an wonderful essay today, which spanks Tom Friedman so hard I almost pity the stupid little bastard. An excerpt:

You’re complaining that "The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy.” No shit Sherlock. Perhaps you should decline the next time a Bushie offers you a Viagra and Jim Beam cocktail before you write such simpleminded and immature drivel. You and your half-witted friends have enabled this group of Neanderthals since 9/11 with silly screeds... I hope it made you feel all manly and powerful at the time because it sure is causing a lot of trouble now.

In spite of the proliferation of democracies over the past century, many people across the globe are held captive by their governments. More than a decade after the Berlin Wall fell, more than 2 billion people still live under authoritarian regimes. America must remain vigilant in our support of those living under authoritarianism. There remain people in Asia, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia who do not enjoy the right to choose their own governments and to hold those governments accountable.

Americans and the 3 billion others across the globe living in democracies desire the same freedoms for the remaining 42 percent of the world's population who live without them. But as long as governments like those in Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Iraq, and Sudan exist, freedom is not accessible to all… -George W. Bush, July 13, 2001

The US is determined to establish a unified Iraq under a pluralist democracy in which the human rights of all ethnic groups will be respected. We are not about to overthrow one dictator just to replace him with another. – Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

(C)ertainly the mission, the direction of a post-Iraq government should be in the direction of most liberty and freedom for its people, which democracy represents. – Ari Fleischer, October 2, 2002

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. – George W. Bush, October 7, 2002

The more they stay the same…

The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region. - The Independent, February 17, 2003

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Military readiness, Bush-style

I saw a quote from G-Dub that said, “It’s one of the saddest things about the Presidency.” Curious, because I would think that choosing the saddest thing about this presidency is trying to pick the cutest of a litter of black lab puppies, I went to Runner’s World. There I found out that Bush wasn’t talking about this crazy war he’s got coming or his environmental policies or the pitiful state of the economy or the virtual police state his buddy Ashcroft is whipping up or – well, you get the picture. No, George was saying that the saddest thing about the Presidency was that he just doesn’t get to jog as much as he used to. Honest.

What interested me, as a member of the National Guard*, was this little bit of info:

When did you begin running?1972.

You were 25 then. Did you start running because of health concerns?Yes. I was still very young, but I was so out of shape, a friend of mine played to my vanity to get me to start running. Back then, I was a man who was known to drink a beer or two. And over time, I’m convinced that running helped me quit drinking and smoking. [Bush quit drinking in 1986.] It’s well-documented that Billy Graham provided the spiritual contrast of the body temple which allowed me to convince myself to stop drinking. (Italics Nitpicker’s)

If you’ll refer to this excellent chart at uggabugga, then you’ll realize that the time when Bush was “so out of shape,” the man was supposed to be an officer in the Texas Air National Guard. What does this say of the man’s leadership that he let himself get “so out of shape” when he was a member (an officer!), ostensibly, of the military? What about the fact that it took playing to his “vanity” to get him to start running and not the fact that it was his responsibility as a member of the US Armed Forces to keep himself in a physical state of readiness?

So, in response to peace protests over the weekend, Ari Fleischer has gone to great lengths to embarrass himself:

The global anti-war protests have put the White House on the defensive. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer began his daily briefing by reading newspaper clips about demonstrations against the staging of missiles in Germany in the early 1980s, and said, ``This is not the first time there have been mass protests and in a previous instance America stood on principle ... and as a result the Berlin Wall came down.''

He also told reporters that former President Franklin Roosevelt overcame protests from isolationists to lead American into World War II.

``Often the message of protesters is contradicted by history,'' he said.

First, Ari's an idiot. For every anti-missile protest in Germany there was an anti-Communist protest. Are those protesters "contradicted by history"? For God's sake, Moldova just had protests against their Communist government last month.

Second, Ari would probably find that, in sheer numbers, American protesters have usually been on the side of the angels. Groups that seem to be able to draw large crowds in the U.S. are ones that we usually think of as having a just cause in hindsight. Think "The March on Washington," Ari. Think suffrage. Think Vietnam, Ari, which even Bob McNamara admitted (30 years too late) was a big friggin' boondoggle. As for "isolationists" trying to keep us out of WWII, those people were 1) on your side, Ari; and 2) were quite small in number.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ari Fleischer, professional idiot.

(Note: Julia had trouble believing that Georgie Boy said that paying attention to the size of a protest is like deciding policy "based on a focus group," but he said it.)

Last week, The Wall Street Journal's online bullhorn, OpinionJournal, put up a list of pro-war poems on their website, in response to the Poets Against the War movement. While many of the poems (on both sides, frankly) are a load of bunk, a friend (and former poetry professor) of mine pointed out that they may have missed the point when they put up a poem by Colin Dodds called "The War Takes Shape":

I was never much of a smoker,
but it was all so thick in the air.

The gods were aroused, desirous.
Their pheromones of fire and screaming
overtook our plans.

The stink below Canal Street
makes us mad for retribution.
The race of airplanes
unleashes its warrior caste.

Bloodlust is no weaker,
nor more complicated to arouse
than any other lust.

In the bars, the restaurants,
we talk war until we love each other.

Our conversations begin in diplomatic morass
and end in nuclear consummation,
tasting every permutation of horror in between.

And we hurry to the final explosion
just to be over with it, just to stop
wanting such things for a moment.

History and the old animal gods
squeeze us close.

We do all we can
to escape their embrace
and end up doing all that they ask.

It seems Colin slipped a fast one past Mr. Taranto, who apparently can't understand that this is far from a pro-war poem.

Viacom, however, says it had legitimate reasons to decline the advertisements. “The issue was not the content of the ad, but the guidelines for taking ads from organizations of this type,” a Viacom spokesperson told NEWSWEEK. “They didn’t meet the guidelines.” According to the spokesperson, those guidelines are: to pay upfront; to give a 30-day advance notice of the ad, and to display contact information on the billboard. A Viacom official said the organization did not comply with the first two. The official also said the company is more cautious with political ads and dot-com organizations. But Manso says that Viacom is “backpedaling” because they’ve been embarrassed. “At no time were we presented with guidelines,” he says, noting that he dealt with sales reps in four cities. “And that’s just not the way business is done.”

The problem is that they aren't so cautious with Republican ads. I know of at least three billboards near me which were put up by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America which were put up after the last election which say only "Congratulations, Senator Roberts" of "Congratulations, Congressman Ryun" with a big ol' picture of the Republican bastards. I contacted the OAAA and was told that this wasn't supporting them, but a "public information campaign," because "studies show that many people don't even know who their representatives are." I'm sure that at least some of the billboards on which they bought space are Viacom-owned and there wasn't a bit of real "contact information" on that site. I had to get on the web, on the phone and jump up and down to speak to someone.

This issue, as you can see if you go to the OAAA Government Affairs website, is that these bastards push "property rights," so that anyone who owns property could, theoretically put up a huge-ass sign that spoils your view of whatever mountain or building you might want to see.

In fact, go to the site now and you'll see that their "Capitol Spotlight" is on Inhofe, who: "is the new chairman of the Senate’s 19-member Environment & Public Works Committee" and "is pro-business and supports property rights." You'll also see that they're stroking the Bushes with their "State and Local Spotlight":

Forty states now have anti-amortization protection of property. The latest state to adopt anti-amortization legislation: Florida. When Gov. Jeb Bush signed the bill, he said, “We must always be wary of the government taking or regulating away the use of property, tangible or real.

Thursday, February 13, 2003

More fun Hatch quotes

Updating the previous post about the hypocritical Senator Hatch, the Omaha World-Heraldreminds us in an excellent editorial that Orrin said this a few years ago, too:

I believe the Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists... It will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views.

Hear, hear, Senator. Now show us your not full of shit and demand that Estrada answers some questions.Thanks to Stephen at To the Barricades! for pointing this out.)

Update: Michael Kinsley has more on this subject, including this response to Republicans who are calling Democrats "anti-Hispanic":

The seat Republicans want to give Estrada is only open because Republicans successfully blocked a Clinton nominee. Two Clinton nominations to the D.C. Circuit were blocked because Republicans said the circuit had too many judges already. Now Bush has sent nominations for both those seats. Hatch and others accuse Democrats of being anti-Hispanic for opposing Estrada. With 42 circuit court vacancies to fill, Estrada is the only Hispanic Bush has nominated. Clinton nominated 11, three of whom the Republicans blocked.

TBogg has an addition to my note about Tom "Otto" Delay, reminding us that it was those darned minorities that kept "The Hammer" from dropping on the Viet Cong.

And, while the French would call it l'esprit d'escalier to mention this, the Frenchman that Delay harangued should have pointed out that, without French (and Spanish) assistance, Americans would still be enjoying "high tea" rather than their morning cup of joe.

Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about diplomatic developments in the Iraq crisis misidentified the Bush administration official who said about the weapons inspectors in Iraq, "At some point it will become obvious that it's time for them to go." It was an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity, not Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser.

So, while you can find a lot of information about the Estrada filibuster (and why it's important) here, here, here and here, it all basically boils down to this: Republicans want to push Miguel Estrada's nomination to a very important judgeship, despite the fact he's kept information from them and, in some instances, lied.

What, exactly, is the responsibility of the Senate on this issue, though? Why do they need this information? I mean, it's not really their job to find out what a judge believes, but only if he or she is qualified, right?

Not so, said Orrin Hatch seven years ago:

"Those nominees who are or will be judicial activists should not be nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, and I personally will do my best to see to it that they are not." -- Orrin Hatch in a speech to the Federalist Society, November 15, 1996 (via the, shudder, Phyllis Schlafly Report)

The Nitpicker thanks the Senator for clearing that up.

But, my, what a difference seven years make:

During Estrada's five-hour confirmation hearing last year, Democrats repeatedly contended that he lacked judicial experience. Estrada's refusal to answer questions about specific cases, including those on abortion rights, gave them little to review, Democrats complained.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Estrada answered every question the Democrats had. "The truth is he didn't answer questions in a way that could be used against him," he said.

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

A History Lesson

And you wonder why Bush opposes an international court...

Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole...

War was seen to be inevitable, or at the very least, highly probable, if these purposes were to be accomplished. The German people, therefore, with all their resources were to be organised as a great political-military army. schooled to obey without question any policy decreed by the State.

Joe Conason points out that not only did Colin Powell leave out the fact that the new Bin Laden tape explicitly denounce the current rulers of Iraq, but that the US attacking Iraq is probably just what Osama wants.

Perhaps the new anti-war slogan should be: Bomb if you love Osama!

Update: I have a woefully inadequate links section, as I figure that you probably already know about the best of these guys anyway and my pointing to them as if I was the first to notice them seems a little cocky. With that being said, I've added TBogg today, in no small part due to his pointing out that the Bin Laden tape shows that Bush is failing yet another subject.

Who, apparently, was the inspiration for the character of "Otto," in A Fish Called Wanda:

"I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day," he told reporters, "and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off." From The Washington Post.

Doesn't this sound an awful lot like Otto's "If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German" bit?

Look, Mr. Kurtz, is it so hard, when following a link, to look up at the top of the web page and see that the Nitpicker's hometown newspaper isn't the World Journal, but the Journal-World? Fuhgodsakes!

And, why, if Andy Sullivan was going to get pissed about something Arthur Sulzberger said while he was here in Lawrence, didn't he point out to other bloggers that Art compared the internet (which kicked his ass on Trent Lott, John Lott and myriad other news items that were deemed unfit to print) to the Speaker's Corner in London: "There's all these guys ranting on their soapboxes. How much knowledge is passed out on a given day? Almost none."

In reading Timothy Noah's update on the despicable New York Sun editorial, this occurred to me: Why the hell are protesters waiting for a goddamn permit in the first place? I mean, lives are at stake here, people! Just fucking march and, if the merde hits the ventilateur, then let the courts deal with it. So far, we've let Bush and his frigging cronies manage the debate here and, if it takes a Chicago Eight trial to bring his BS to light, then we might just have to do it.

In fact, if someone'll pay the Nitpicker's way to NY, I'll lead the march mydamnself.

::We already know (thank you Mr. DiIulio) that the White House is full of "Mayberry Machiavellis." Could they be so Machiavellian, though, as to be pushing against the United Nations for the express purpose of destroying it? Remember, this is the way the League of Nations fell and "Get the U.S. out of the U.N." is the screed to be found on signs in the kookiest of right-wingers front yards.

::Using the same logic applied by the Bush Administration when it says that, because terrorist could be hiding in Iraq we must attack that country, couldn't we also attack Camp Lejeune?

::If this kind of crap is what people who want to "defend" the United States write, then what exactly is it they are trying to defend?

::While I was gone, people seem to have forgotten that the current administration is only an H initial and a Quayle away from being the same bastards who lied to us so much to justify the Gulf War. Remember the "312 premature babies at Kuwait City's maternity hospital who died after Iraqi soldiers stole their incubators and left the infants on the floor"? Then why would we believe the evidence they present us now, no matter how good it looks. Remember, this "evidence" is some vague shit and, as my man Dr. Tom Spencer points out, is looking a bit sketchier every single day.